Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27

[edit]

Template:PD-AustraliaGov

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Although there is consensus the status quo is not the ideal situation, there is also no consensus to delete it either. Please feel free to split it, refactor it, etc. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-AustraliaGov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is covered by {{PD-Australia}} which specifies terms for Australian State and Federal governments. The wording of the text erroneously specifies ...and was published... which isnt a requirement as PD in Australia only specifies was taken prior to 1955. Gnangarra 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a different discussion, but I would rather support merging this with a split of {{PD-Australia}} than with the whole list. I trust Stefan2's experience, so I'm now thinking it would be confusing to wrap this to the full list, even if it is split later, so I'll withdraw my support until a split occurs. I may support a reverse merge/split, taking the relevant item from {{PD-Australia}} to merge into this template. It would be best to include both templates in discussion to do this, though. —PC-XT+ 06:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pink Floyd singles

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pink Floyd singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pink Floyd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would merging require a new discussion? If this is merged, I'd obviously say delete —PC-XT+ 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Missing article

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Search (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Missing article with Template:Search.
I updated the missing article template so that there were no longer any dead links, and additionally added some new useful links, such as HathiTrust and Archive.org. I think the best way to go is to merge the templates, as they have the same uses, and simply make either one of them a redirect. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The project is inactive, the site if not dead is on life support. Most of it hasn't been updated in years and is certainly not a good source of content for WP, especially as this appears on mostly very active pages that long ago improved past the point where they could benefit from a refresh from CZ, if they ever could. Maybe once useful but now pointless clutter on some high traffic talk pages. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have asked the participants of WikiProject Citizendium Porting whether they are o.k. with marking the project as defunct (which would imply that this template should be removed). So far, one has said yes, one thinks it is premature and another is going to see if there is anything that can be done to resurrect the project. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep make the project defunct first. We should not delete the banner if the project is only inactive. This nomination is getting the process backwards. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? The reasons for deletion are it serves no purpose, both because the project is inactive and the site is dead by any reasonable metric. As it's inactive there's no activity to participate in if you follow the first link. If an editor on their own initiative visits CZ anyway they'll find it dead. A handful of content edits a day[1]. One article stuck waiting for approval for over two[2]. No new approved articles for three years[3]. The latter is a particular problem for porting content across.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We shouldn't give up on this. Citizendium has in the past made it impossible to move WP articles to Citizendium ,and still makes it very difficult; I think this was a major factors inhibiting its growth--certainly my initial intent there was to work on articles suitable simultaneously for both encyclopedias. This project is the reciprocal one, to take the relative small amount of good content there where we either do not have articles or have just sketchy ones (most of their content does meet our standards, once their references are converted to our system, it's just that they have compared to us such a small amount of content). I've always meant to do some of this, but I have to admit I haven;t done any recently. But I nonetheless think it very important to keep up whatever connections we can maintain--their purpose is not opposed oto our, but complementary. Especially if they never od reach a critical mass, it would be good it =f the work done there was not altogether wasted. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to where? Maybe if a user requested it, before or after deletion so they could work on it, but I don't see that here. It could happen at a future date if someone wants to revive the project, but even then it might not be needed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just me thinking aloud. I'm struggling with the balance here. It would be a clearcut decision if all the members of the project agreed to mark it defunct or otherwise dispose of it; but two people want to keep it going, and as far as I can tell from the Wikiproject guide, that's enough for the project to continue. Is an inactive project enough reason to say that the template is not used? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:V

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:V (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Navbar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:V with Template:Navbar.
They both basically do the same thing, namely provide V-T-E links. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Links other than "view · talk · edit" have been deprecated in {{Navbar}} due to this similarity, or it would be partially merged, already. Other (largely redundant) features are summarized in the following table. —PC-XT+ 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Effect Navbar param(s) V (or View) markup
v · t · e |mini=1 {{v|t|e}}
view · talk · edit |plain=1 {{view|talk|edit}}
This box: view · talk · edit default This box: {{view|talk|edit}}
This template: view · talk · edit |text=This template: This template: {{view|talk|edit}}
[view · talk · edit] |plain=1|brackets=1 [{{view|talk|edit}}]
CSS for span |fontstyle= wrap in span HTML with style sttribute
CSS for div |style= wrap in div HTML with style attribute
v · m deprecated {{v|m|<page>}}
v deprecated {{v|<page>}}
I was actually thinking of a wrapper or module, myself, but I'll support a merge if it doesn't cause problems. I think {{Navbar}} could basically wrap {{V}} for the same result, but merged into the same template, the article title looks like it would be a problem requiring usage change and editing of other pages. —PC-XT+ 02:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wouldn't {{V}}'s {{{template|{{{1}}}}}} work for the article title in both templates? Maybe I was thinking of a different parameter... —PC-XT+ 02:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but I really like V's flexible syntax a lot more than navbar, so merge with navbar, but use V as the base and add navbar's functions to it. To make it easier, I'd suggest moving V to a better name (maybe Module:Templatelinks/{{templatelinks}}), make the merge update, then start orphaning navbar. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic: Template:Navbar has over 7.5 million transclusions, and Template:V has less than 3500. If we merged, we'd definitely be merging V into Navbar (at least as far as names go), not the other way around. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • V's parameters make it the better merge target, as demonstrated by —PC above. The # of transclusions makes it even more important that the transition happen over time, and neither "V", "View", or "Navbar" are very good names for this merged template. I think my suggestion is the best plan, I don't care how popular navbar is. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think {{V}}/{{View}} is the better merge target, due to the way the parameters work, but if we rename it, the first "v" or "view" would need to be replaced by the new template name. {{Navbar}} could be a wrapped redirect, transcluding {{v|t|e|each_named_param=...}} in a similar way to {{View}} redirecting to {{V}}, (or just using a module for them both, as suggested earlier.) In this way, we could have both using the same code, adding functionality to {{V}}, but preserving the functionality expected for the widely used {{Navbar}}. (Unless a module is used, {{Navbar}} should probably handle |mini=1, using perhaps 2 or 3 #ifs, one for the named parameter used by {{View}}, and one or two (if there is trouble with the "|") to change the second and third parameters between "t|e" and "talk|edit".) If someone wants proof-of-concept code, I may have some time to write it this weekend, unless someone else does it first... —PC-XT+ 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: It hasn't been mentioned, but a module already exists for {{V}}/{{View}}: Module:Template view. I believe it to be fully functional now, but I held off on reactivating my PER when I saw this discussion. moluɐɯ 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That module looks good. Any thoughts on adding more named parameters that do the same things as those {{Navbar}} provides? If this ends up being called from Navbar, text should be prepended by default, as well. —PC-XT+ 05:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comment 5.5 million of {{navbar}} uses are hidden invisibly within WikiProject banners and 1.8 million are similarly hidden within {{asbox}} (stub templates). These mega-use templates need to be looked at. In the case of the ones hiding the links, I see no reason to support them for the maybe dozen or so editors that have customized their CSS to see them. They could incorporate the relevant code into their templates directly rather than call navbar. Anyway, I just wanted to share why there is such scale to this particular template, and show where that transclusion count really comes from. -- Netoholic @ 10:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fist, given that Edokter opposes (08:41 cmt), is a good indication of incompatibility (beyond surface observations). By myself, I know that {navbar} is tailored to a table environment, and uses <div> tags. This {v}/{view} tempaltes use <span> tags, so allow inline usage & handling (great). Also {v}/{view} is more flexible wrt the links provided, is what I need every now ad then. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the parameters are currently incompatible isn't a problem. In the process of merging, the new template can be made to work with either set of parameters. The same is true with the block/inline differences. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But at what cost? We would essentially have to write two completely different template in one, complicating the conditional code (either in template or lua) at such a level that really does not warrant merging the two. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think of this as replacing both templates with a newly redesigned one. I would be fine with simply making the templates use the module for now, continuing the consideration of additional parameters, such as |style=, |fontstyle= or wrapped/prepended text, on the module talk page, but it may be better to do it all at once, if we can find consensus. —PC-XT+ 00:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Odisha

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Odisha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A possibly huge template. I am not saying its absolutely unnecessary, but its huge in capacity when formed fully. It comes from List of Rajya Sabha members from Odisha. We also have a Category:Rajya Sabha members from Odisha for navigation purpose. Plus, I guess this is the only in the lot Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Indian state §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical colleges in India and Template:Airports in India are also two huge templates. Is there any rule/ guideline against the size of this Nav. box ? In case of Nav. boxes almost everywhere there is a related category for navigation purpose. I don't understand what's the problem here. If this Nav. box violates any pre defined guideline/s, then it must be deleted I have no objection. Thanks --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having template for 15 entries is different from having it for 100+. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its currently not long as it's not fully updated. Note that templates can have red-links of notable entries which in future would be blue-links. If all names are added in it, it would have 100+ names in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kylie Minogue source warning

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kylie Minogue source warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A useless Kylie Minogue-related template; I replaced it with {{notice}} in Talk:Better Than Today. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Assess

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assess (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously used for WP:article assessment. Now it's no longer transcluded by any page, and the Wikipedia page is deprecated and superseded by its successor, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It is time to delete this template. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open wikilink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Close wikilink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:!(( (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:))! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Open squares (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC))
Template:Close squares (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC))

Propose merging Template:Open wikilink & Template:Open squares with Template:!((, and Template:Close wikilink & Template:Close squares with Template:))!.
Of course I may be mistaken, but do these templates do precisely the same things? If yes, and if this would not lead to some technical issues like a very costly redirect, I think they should be merged under the shorter (even though more cryptic) titles !(( & ))!, to follow {{((}} and similar. If closed to merge, please note that the former templates are older, so probably their edit histories should be kept at the final titles. YLSS (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Less functional duplicate of {{United States topic}}. All articles have been changed to use 'United States topic'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates backlink is just a link noting that it has been replaced with another template. Bamyers99 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikipedia talk notice

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia talk notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is almost redundant to {{Warning}}. I replaced it with that template in Talk:Wikipedia. If you disagree with the edit, you can revert it back to this template. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jj98: - as creator, do you know? Ollieinc (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27&oldid=1138534148"